Bent Monach 757 at Gib [Archive]

Wheelwell

28th May 2002, 18:42

Monach 757 currently sitting on the ramp at Gib with a very bent fuselage. It appears the unfortuate pilot made a less than smoth arrival and put several sizable wrinkles and ripples plus two 8 inch tears in the fuz. Boeing flew in from Seattle to look at it. Reckon they can fix it but the price may exceed the hull value.

EGGW

28th May 2002, 19:00

From what i hear, the arrival was nothing unusual. The aircraft taxied to stand. Only then did they notice something was wrong.
This aircraft is the highest hours/cycles 757 in the world, this is why Boeing is very interested.
And yes i do work for Spotty M. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It may be scrapped if repairs like you say exceed hull value, damm shame, just had a new paint job :eek:

Magplug

28th May 2002, 19:00

I recall seeing a 757 at Funchal a few years ago, maybe Monarch (the grey cells are going), with similar mishap.

Nose gear was right up thro' the fuselage but they managed a fix in-situ.

Gib is just as bad as Funchal for the unpredictable wind - sometimes a lot worse. Kai Tak was a walk in the park compared to these two. Pleased no one was hurt. Anyone got any pictures ???

EGGW

28th May 2002, 19:02

See above re. the landing.

Nope it was Air Europe that bent a 757 at Funchal many moons ago...

Magplug

28th May 2002, 19:29

Ah Yes! Air Europe...I remember now - the mists of time are clearing!

EGGW - If this scale of fuselage distress resulted from a 'nothing unusual' arrival, then I am certainly intrigued to hear more.

spagiola

28th May 2002, 19:49

Interesting (and potentially worrying) if this was the highest-time and -cycle example. What's the reg?

Kalium Chloride

28th May 2002, 20:40

The reg is NC. This is the GIB incident which happened a few days back -- it got a mention a few posts down on this thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54271) (near the bottom of 1st page)

RAGBAG

28th May 2002, 20:43

MAGPLUG

Gib is just as bad as Funchal for the unpredictable wind

I've been going in and out of Gib since 1968 and I would hardly describe the winds there as unpredictable. In fact the local wind effects at Gib are probably the most studied and best documented of just about any airfield anywhere. Yes there are problems, particularly on 27 with a Southwesterly. The down and up draughts on short finals have caught out a few people, but they are well documented and fully covered in the relevant pages of the approach plates.

Most of the "Gib Dramas" have occurred not because of the conditions, but through pilots pressing on with landings from destabilised approaches. At Gib (or anywhere) if it isn't right, throw it away, go around, and apply what you've just learned to the next approach.

RAGBAG

JR_wilco

28th May 2002, 20:54

got anyone the aircraft ID?
highest TT of all 757´s in the world ?
can only be G-MONB/C or /D

all left manu plant between March and May 1983
(thats when I made my initial girl experience @ school)

Avman

28th May 2002, 21:52

JR Wilco , it's already been mentioned: G-MONC.

411A

29th May 2002, 02:55

When Monarch introduced the type into service years ago, didn't they have "problems" with the opposite end...ie: tail strikes?

G-AZUK

29th May 2002, 08:40

nope

Magplug

29th May 2002, 11:55

You are quite correct and I agree with all you say. You clearly have great experience of operating into Gibraltar.

I shall try and choose my words more carefully in future in the knowledge that I will be immediately corrected if I give the slightest incorrect impression in a post.

Nopax,thanx

29th May 2002, 12:13

...........could always put a Freight door in where the damage is!!!

morroccomole

29th May 2002, 13:15

EGGW;
the high time 757 is G-MONB. This is an ETOPS 757 and has been flogged across the pond through the 90's.

G-MONC is non ETOPS, and may be the high cycle machine, I'm not sure.

flt_lt_w_mitty

29th May 2002, 14:05

Oh come on, Maglite, you pompous old git! Why not admit it gracefully, there is at least 1 person who knows more than you.

Para 1 : Correct
Para 2: Good!

Hard school!

EGGW

29th May 2002, 14:46

I'm pretty sure neither NB or NC were not flogged across the Pond as you say, or were occasionally, only as standby machines. The MTOM for both is lower than others in the fleet.
Anyway, doing longhaul means more ground time, less sectors, etc...
I only work for Spotty M mate.

Heard today that a brake problem might have caused the rapid de-rotation onto the nose gear.

red 5

29th May 2002, 15:39

NB i can assure you is an ETOPS equiped 757, as i spent many months in Bangor Maine turning it and numerous other 757's around in the early ninetees. Shame about 'NC' though it was the first 757 i flew on in 84, and is also the initials of my name.

Wheelwell

29th May 2002, 20:01

:( Intersting to hear that a brake problem may have caused the nose to bang on. I work for Gerbil Airways and have had a good nose around said a/c. It just so happens that the same skipper burst one or two tyres at Gib the week before when a brake locked on during landing. Its true that the conditions on the day were good for Gib (wind out of the west, which is what we pray for ). Gib is not a place to go to when the wind is south west, the limit for example from 190 deg is just 15 kts. It has to be said however that even on the best of days you'd want to hit the touch down zone if you were at max landing , as the end of the 1680m runway comes up sharpish. We have an unwriten rule that if you aint firmly down by the road (that crosses the runway) go around, and we do quite regularly. Got to say in closing that we at Grbil airways have a lot of sympathy for the pilot.There but for the grace of and all that.

Magplug

29th May 2002, 20:23

Ft.Lt.Mitty !

Yes I know it's a rough old life but it is always refreshing to know that someone will pull you up for putting a comma in the wrong place. Just like being at work really....come to think of it, it is just like being at home.........:eek:

Unlike some of our correspondants I don't believe Gib is totally predictable except perhaps when the wind is out of the west when it is quite benign. With the wind southerly / SW'ly you can often see the downdrafting air disturbing the surface of a calm sea - if conditions permit. Unfortunately it is often too late to do much about it. Being stuck to the runway by the road however is an excellent measure.

Bus429

29th May 2002, 20:46

red 5 - not one of the class of '78, are you?

A300Man

30th May 2002, 08:02

The aircraft involved is definately NC and DID a short spell early 90's across the pond, and even one or two trips to Dabolim, via AUH.

Aircraft will be withdrawn from use and will be replaced temporarily by another 757 on interim lease from......none other than BA, we hear.

ZB's GIB services will continue in the meantime on A321's / A320 mix.

EGGW

30th May 2002, 08:24

At the moment, 757's still doing the GIB run. 321's will not do it, due limited RTOM out of GIB.
NW that was going into storage in France, is being re-introduced to service ASAP. Maybe that will do the GIB runs.
BA 757 on lease, where did that info. come from

:confused: :confused:

xyz_pilot

30th May 2002, 08:33

Any pics?

A300Man

30th May 2002, 10:58

The news that Monarch are to lease-in an ex-BA 757 came from MON Luton itself. The aircraft - apparently - is scheduled idle for the next 13 weeks awaiting transfer to Israel for fit-out as DHL Cargo machine.

MON will use on lesser density routes, thus keeping the sardine machines for the Palma's, etc.

The a/c in question operated strictly BA UK Shuttle services, and thus is not equipped with the leather VGS.

A300Man

30th May 2002, 12:19

Hi G-AZUK,

Sorry. I appear to have been mis-informed. My information was that the BA mahine going to Monarch for 3 months was G-BIKK.

Shame about the whole incident, especially as you say, after the new paint job.

simfly

30th May 2002, 13:43

G-BIKK would make sense. I believe it's the G-BIK*'s which are going to DHL. Slightly different engines, but pratically the same I think. I remember landing in GIB as pax a few years ago, with that strong s/westerly mentioned before. Was like a roller coaster, dropping like a brick one minute, then felt the updraughts the next, defened by the female's screams!

Bus429

30th May 2002, 14:05

G-BIKK??? Do MON need a cargo configured 757, then? I think you'll find it is already in service with DHL.:rolleyes:

Woodman

30th May 2002, 19:18

Didn't Transavia bend a 757 at AMS on Christmas Eve a few years ago? I remember pictures of a collapsed nose gear.
I also seem to remember that the airport had shut the logical runway for the wind direction and the pilots had to cope with a strong crosswind.
Seems to be some similarity?

Anti Skid On

30th May 2002, 21:33

Back to the topic in the other thread - was thee actually a hard landing related to a brake prob, or has the metal crumpled like a Coke can from old age (pertinent in the light of CI611 - also big hours/cycles)

what_the_hell_was_that?

31st May 2002, 08:26

Woodman, no similarity to the Transavia accident whatsoever.

It was caused by the crew not disconnecting the autopilot until the last minute on a windy approach. As the a/c had already gone into Autoland mode it had applied elevator trim (as it is meant to do) when the crew disconnected there was a bit of a surprise nose up pitch and the resulting effort to get the nose on the ground broke it.

near enuf is good enuf

31st May 2002, 10:29

What the hell......,

Dat don't make sense to me.
I can't see why there would be a sudden change in attitude when a/p disconnected, trim or no trim !

Then again I'm not as clever as you boys up the front :p

411A

31st May 2002, 14:50

Well near enuf....'tis the same with many aircraft.
Perhaps a little more "hand flying" experience is needed for these guys....urgently.;)

kriskross

31st May 2002, 15:36

Perhaps people who don't know the relevant aircraft systems should not be so quick to cast aspersions!!!! Same would happen on a 737 as well!!

Hand Solo

31st May 2002, 15:56

And hasn't autopilot mode/trim confusion led directly to the loss of several A300s?

Jaun Huw Nose

1st Jun 2002, 21:47

As I understand the touchdown on the mains was good, on speed in the right place,the nose dropped sharply (757 drivers might recognise this..).maybe technique was wrong but PF is apparently V experienced on type and in current aero practice...
wonder if the elevator PCU is the same as the 737 rudder PCU?...;)

320DRIVER

2nd Jun 2002, 12:39

The trim problem is certainly apparent on the B737!

I don't understand how the B737 falls under the parameters for a "fail-passive autloand system" since if I recall correctly from my early days, one of the requirements is that there should be no siginificant out-of-trim condition if the A/P is disengaged at any point during an autoland.

Anyone who has disconnected the A/P on a B737 after it has applied the nose-up trim automatically knows that this is total and utter bo**ocks.

Tight Slot

2nd Jun 2002, 15:54

Nose up trim is only applied for the flare on a 757, if its in Land 2 status. ie only two out of the three autojockies are working. On a Land 3, there should be no pitch up if the autopilots are disengaged. Must remember to give its a go next time....doh!

what_the_hell_was_that?

3rd Jun 2002, 08:28

According to my Boeing manual:

During an approach with two or three autopilots engaged and below 330 feet RA an increment of nose up trim is automatically applied for flare. If the autopilots are subsequently disengaged in the approach, a forward control column force of 20-30 pounds may be required to counter the automatic trim condition. If an automatic multi-autopilot go-around is performed, the increment of automatic trim is removed.

Anyway, we're splitting hairs. This wasn't the cause of the incident so it's not really relevant. ;)

clipstone

3rd Jun 2002, 09:46

So there's no pics yet then?

Was told on Friday the aircraft will be repaired at a cost of about $8million, against an insured value of about $30million. Alas it will take quite some time, as will require Boeing to do it and GIB not the best place to arrange that!

Mowgli

3rd Jun 2002, 10:25

This post has the potential of giving us some hard learnt experience of landing a big jet at Gib. I have read here that it may have been a pilot problem or a technical problem. It would be really valuable if the definitive answer could be posted here when it is available. My sympathies to the crew and pax whether it was a technical problem or a pilot induced one. I have in the distant past flown into Gib so I am aware of the tricky wind situation, and one of my colleagues got it a bit wrong one day and hammered a light just before the threshold (journos note - this was not a passenger ac which would aim to land further in than on the numbers at the threshold so hold your pens). I also watched with eyebrows raised a F104 Starfighter whose chute hadn't deployed flash over the road at great speed and nearly get wet at the far end.

mole

3rd Jun 2002, 11:13

I really don't believe this guy 411A, yet another post where he criticises the pilot/s. Give us all a break 411A and go play some golf or something. I used to think you were eccentric now I think you are clinically insane.

411A

4th Jun 2002, 03:09

Well mole...notice you're up to your usual form.

When the aeroplane is bent on landing, it usually IS the pilots that screwed up...or were just plain unlucky. CI B747 at Kaitak, is a good example. Nothing new really. :p

EGGW

4th Jun 2002, 09:33

411a, you really are an idiot aren't you. What about a technical problem the flight crew weren't aware of on landing. Ever been to GIB, i have many times.
Please go back to you Flight Sim game, and get a life :mad: :mad:

Hussar 54

19th Jun 2002, 16:33

A little late I know but.......

Was anything published or ever been issued about the Britannia 757 mishap at Gerona or was it Reus a couple of years ago.....

No special reason for asking.....just curious

fmgc

19th Jun 2002, 18:13

Nothing since this which was ages ago (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/special/gbyag/gbyags.htm)

Maxclimb

19th Jun 2002, 19:44

I have just spent a week flying out of Gib and had a good look around MONC, the nose gear has impacted into the flight deck causing a large distortion to the floor and damaging all kinds of internal wiring etc. They are planning to build an inflateable hangar around the a/c and Boeing will repair it at a cost of $4 millon.

LTN man

19th Jun 2002, 20:41

Mole and EGGW. I think you need to read Sticky: warning from Capt PPRuNe again!

BlueUpGood

19th Jun 2002, 21:21

A reliable inside Monarch source told me the landing recorded a max 1.75g. Hardly the stuff of heavy landings, even if the nose was slammed (not proven).

Let's not rule out structural failure.. this was after all a very elderly example of the type. The HP involved may yet be proven innocent of any mishandling of the landing!

There but for the grace of God go all of us!:confused:

moggie

20th Jun 2002, 17:35

This reminds me of a similar problem on an RAF VC10 a few years back when I was flying them.

Turnround visual inspection showed wrinkling of the aft fuselage under the engines. An "expert" was flown out to a/c, declared it "fit one flight back to Brize" (from Canada I think) and the wrinkles were all marked with indelible ink.

The crew said said they would fly it if the "expert" was a passenger - he didn't want to but eventually agreed.

When they got home, all the wrinkles had moved and serious delamination of the skin was found. The skin had pulled free of the ribs due to corrosion.

The engineers then nearly wrote the jet off when jacking the back up to a force of 2 tons to put it back into shape, they misread the gauge and tried to turn it into a banana by applying 20 tons of force!

Now, this is not the same as the famous Tristar moment when the crew stuffed a mainwheel up into the wing, cracking the spar, and then flew a go around - in the VC10's case it was old age not idiocy!

Waldo

21st Jun 2002, 10:34

Good News!!

The aircraft is now under repair and should be back in service in 2- 3 weeks. Cost about $2.5mil.

Evanelpus

21st Jun 2002, 12:19

Moggie

I can remember a number of years ago doing a survey on a BAe125 in Cape Town that had a 'similar wrinkling' of the fuselage skin around the engine area.

Our experts told us that rear engine mounted aircraft were more prone to this after a heavy landing.

EGGW

21st Jun 2002, 16:59

LTN man Capt Pprune's Sticky went up after my posts. Please look before posting, ta very much http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/tosser1.gif

Denzil

22nd Jun 2002, 11:15

Moggie more than one of the VC10 had this problem, they all had to be reskinned! As for the L1011 go around, he didnt have much choice as the engines were throttled up for a touch (sadly he did more than that) and go. Your description is a tad over dramatised, the rear spar was indeed cracked but the gear was safe to land on! RAF not on their own with this as CX did the same to one of their L1011's.

As for skin rippling, take a look around the aft belly on a B747.

Alloy

22nd Jun 2002, 12:44

Or a 737.

zfw

23rd Jun 2002, 10:09

Especially a 737-400..just before the rear hold.....theyre all rippled like hell.

gas path

23rd Jun 2002, 10:37

As Denzil says As for skin rippling, take a look around the aft belly on a B747
Funnily enough if you put 40 tonnes on the rear jack all them wrinkles move up to the top:D :D :eek: :D

No comment

25th Jun 2002, 10:27

speaking of which, remember the ERJ that landed heavily snapping behind the wings with the aft fuselage at 45 or so degrees to the rest of the fuselage...

Nopax,thanx

25th Jun 2002, 15:09

Or the DC-9 that snapped off it's tail at Granada in '92! Mind you, it took nearly 5g to do it......
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Desk Driver

25th Jun 2002, 16:46

Picture here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=247068&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDc1Ny0yVDc%3D&WdsYXMg=TW9uYXJjaCBBaXJsaW5lcw%3D%3D&QtODMg=R2licmFsdGFyIC0gTm9ydGggRnJvbnQgKEdJQiAvIExYR0Ip&ERDLTkt=R2licmFsdGFy&ktODMp=SnVuZSAxOCwgMjAwMg%3D%3D&WNEb25u=TWlrYWVsIEt1dXNlbGE%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=Ry1NT05D&MgTUQtODMgKE=V2hhdCBhIHNwZWN0YWN1bGFyIHZpZXcgdG8gdGhlIFJvY2s gb2YgR2licmFsdGFyISBUaGUgcGxhbmUgaXMgcmVwcmVzZW50aW5nIHRoZSB uZXcgY29sb3JzIG9mIE1vbmFyY2gu&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=Nzk2&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMi0wNi0yNg%3D%3D&static=yes&size=L)

Desk Driver

27th Jun 2002, 11:43

This might be a stupid question. (are'nt all of mine!)

Why if it's a UK registered Acft and a UK airline that had an event on UK territory would the NTSB have this GIB incident reported to them?

Report here (http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020614X00881&key=1)

Nopax,thanx

27th Jun 2002, 12:55

Because it was built in the USA....?

Desk Driver

27th Jun 2002, 12:59

Surely not every Boeing, Lockheed or Mc Donnel D's incident is not reported, is it only limited to certain type of criteria?

Mr @ Spotty M

27th Jun 2002, 16:31

I think it has always been Monarch policy to report incidents to manufactures, to assist others. This however is classed as an accident and was likely passed on by the aaib.

akerosid

29th Jun 2002, 08:13

I'm sure there's an international protocol and convention to deal with issues such as these.

As far as I am aware, the lead investigator would be the state where the accident took place, assuming that state declares it to be an accident, as opposed to an incident. (I believe any incident involving serious or fatal injuries is classed as an accident; a very serious incident - for example the Interflug A310 which went into aerobatics near Moscow in 1991 - would not necessarily be the subject of a formal accident report).

In a situation such as this, the state of registry and the state of manufacture would also be involved, to the extent that they are invited to do so; the formal report would be compiled by the state where the accident took place and (as evidenced by the SQ TPE or KLM Tenerife disasters), they might not always agree.

I would imagine that the investigating authority would also have the right to call another body/consultants in to assist; for example, if there was repeat of (for example) SR 111, the Canadian TSB would most likely be invited to assist, having built up considerable experience in a particular area.

Cathar

29th Jun 2002, 11:23

Akerosid

There is, it is Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention.

It covers the investigation of both accidents and incidents. As you say, responsibility for the investigation of an accidnet rests with the "state of occurrence". The state of occurrence has to notify the accident to the states of registry, design and operator, all of who are entitled to participate in the accident investigation.

A copy of Annex 13 can be found at: http://www.sq006.gov.sg/about/ICAO%20Annex%2013.pdf

A300Man

29th Jun 2002, 11:56

My apologies if I have already missed it elsewhere on-line, but does ANYONE ANYWHERE have a picture of the B757 after its interesting landing in Gibraltar.

For once, camera lenses appear to have been pointing all in the wrong direction.

By the way, just came as a pax on my first flight with Monarch in ten years. They are pretty damn good and I would say miles ahead of the deteriorating charter products offered by MYT, BY, JMC and XLA.

Only AMM are on a par with MON.

Desk Driver

29th Jun 2002, 18:42

A300Man

See top of this page

A300Man

29th Jun 2002, 18:58

whoops. missed it earlier. thanks desk driver. excellent photograph.

xaf2fe

30th Jun 2002, 00:55

That is an excellent photograph, but it looks like this photo was taken before the incident in question.

The credit says it was taken on 18 June. When was the incident?

BOEINGBOY1

30th Jun 2002, 10:36

Picture was taken after the incidient. Note engine covers and remote stand parking. Monarch have never before this incidient, nightstopped a 757 in GIB.

Pilot Pete

1st Jul 2002, 01:14

Yeah

and if you look closely at the nosegear you can see how it has been horribly distorted into a white rectangular shape and the two nosewheels have split into four smaller ones!:D

PP

loggerhead

24th Jul 2002, 23:17

So its back in the UK, Looks like the Boeing boys have done a damn good job. Paint job needed and back into service next week.:)

Self Loading Freight

24th Jul 2002, 23:34

So what was the conclusion? Slapped down too hard or something odd structurally?

R

canberra

25th Jul 2002, 17:24

starfighters at gib, please tell me more! as the runway is only 6000' im suprised the used it.

The Nr Fairy

9th Jan 2003, 09:34

AAIB report on the incident now available on the AAIB web site (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/jan03/gmonc.htm).

LTNman

9th Jan 2003, 18:07

Looks like the Captain has been blamed in the official report. The report mentions that “The commander was unaware that he had developed the regular use of full nose-down elevator on landing” “ Having developed an incorrect landing technique, it is possible that it was simply a matter of time before the timing in the application of full nose-down elevator caused an incident” report can be found at http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/jan03/gmonc.htm

Georgeablelovehowindia

9th Jan 2003, 21:16

"The commander was unaware that he had developed the regular use of full nose-down elevator on landing." On quite a few occasions, I've had people trying to "steer" the aeroplane down the runway after landing, using the ailerons. (I'm talking about experienced airline pilots, not students.) When reminding (!) them about the use of the rudder pedals, they've invariably looked across in surprise and denied all knowledge of doing it. Interesting...
One of the finer points of flying the 757 is getting the nosewheel back on the ground smoothly. I've seen some fiddling about to achieve it, as the spoilers deploy and the autobrakes come on (guilty too, yer honour!). From my increasingly distant memory of the 757, a slight back pressure is required, isn't it?